I think you underestimate the gameplay of the above games. PARTICULARLY Dark Souls or Bloodborne. If you think those are even remotely similar to "mashing the X button a lot" you're very mistaken. They're some of the most challenging AAA titles on the market.

I may be wrong, but I don't think it really is anymore. It came out of the gate with a lower price point due to XB One originally bundling Kinect. After they've ditched that though and MS has gotten XB One's price down below PS4's it seems to be picking up. I remember seeing several articles stating that XB One's outsold PS4 over Black Friday, and it may continue to do so over the rest of the holiday season.

At this point PS4 just has a fairly significant lead overall and any ground Microsoft has gained has been minimal - probably not enough get back into the lead in installed base for the remainder of the lifecycle.

Xbox One does have better price. Other than that there are a precious few exclusive titles but for the most part they're basically the same with most titles being available for both platforms - you can play a game on either and have mostly the same experience.

Honestly any serious gamer can just buy whichever one they feel like at first - for many that's already been PS4 because it INITIALLY had the price advantage, and then play all the cross platform games on that. After a few years when they've both gotten cheaper buy the other system to catch up on the back catalog of exclusives.

So what you're saying is that the PS4 is a powerful console without games?

I think it may just be poorly phrased shock that you'd make such a comment, as for most people the PS4 lineup seems patently superior to Wii-U.

I've got both systems (and XBOne), and though the kids enjoy a few more games on the Wii-U, I'm basically stuck waiting on Zelda Breath of the Wild.

On PS4 I've got Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3, Witcher 3, Dragon Age 3, Uncharted 4, Until Dawn, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and quite a few more - with more on the way too (Horizon Zero Dawn, The Last of Us 2, etc).

Granted, I'm sure it's subjective and based on what types of games you enjoy, but it's just hard to imagine anyone looking at the current console gen's library and thinking WiiU is the one with the good games.

Yes. But we need to be aware that man is not the only source of antibiotics. They naturally occur. We get a good lot of them from plants and bacteria, starting of course with penicilin which we got from mold, and which was already present on salted food and damp environments. What we did was to make antibiotics present in organisms other than their natural sources.

The United States has some disease reporting, it started at least 75 years ago before the antibiotic bubble. This CDC Report summarizes the present state of disease reporting, in two pages. We need higher standards of reporting and legal penalties for failure to report.

Bruce Perens writes: Silicon Valley folks should, sometime, take the opportunity to view a launch at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Lompoc is 4-5 hours from the Bay, 2.5 hours from LA if there's ever no traffic. An upcoming SpaceX launch is notable because it's their return to flight, months after their last attempt blew up on the pad during a pre-launch test. Read how to view the launch.

Eich resigned because of external pressure on the Mozilla organization. I hear that one of the lobbying activities against him was when the dating site "OK Cupid" started informing Firefox users who accessed the site of Eich's activities and that they should download a browser made by people who don't nominate someone with gender discrimination issues to be their CEO. At the time, 8% of OK Cupid customers were there to arrange same-gender meetings.

They felt he was the public face of the company.

Russ Nelson published a piece on what he theorized was the economic motivation of Blacks to be lazy, and was booted off of the Open Source Initiative board. He wasn't thinking about how it would be perceived. A modified version of the piece is still online, but not the version that got him in trouble. In general, executives are seen as the public faces of their organizations even in the case of Nelson, who was not the chairman of the board, but was simply a member of the executive board. In Nelson's case, it wasn't that he made publicity appearances and press releases, it was that he was one of the people with the power to direct the company (and thus a more real face of the company than soneone who just does PR), and folks did not trust that someone who wrote what he did would behave as they would like in that position.

It was only 1967 when the United States Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, a miscegenation case. Preventing blacks and whites from marrying, as the State of Virginia (and many others) did with laws on its books until it was forced to remove them in 1967, is an issue of racism, nothing else. One doesn't have to be thin skinned to be disgusted by racism.

Why should I feel any different about gender discrminiation? Texas had a law on the book making homosexual relations illegal in 1998, and two men were arrested for it and similarly to Loving, helped to strike it down in the courts. Marriage discrimination is yet another legal wall erected by the prejudiced. Doesn't take a thin skin at all to oppose it and its supporters.

Because you are an end-user and not an investor in these companies, you might actually think the public face of the companies is a logo or a trademark rather than a human being. Perhaps you think the public face of McDonalds is Ronald McDonald! Or that Sprint's used to be that actor who portrayed a technician. But this naiveté is not shared by the people who are the target audience for the public face that the CEO's appearances and quotations produce. AMD has people to handle the guy who once plugged one of their CPUs into a motherboard. The public face nurtured by the CEO is reserved for investors and business relationships, government, and corporate citizenship. These are all areas in which a decision made outside of the company can have great impact on the company. And so, if you go on the company site, you will see the CEO quoted in the press releases related to those items. At trade shows, you will see these CEOs as keynotes. I am heading for CES in January, where many CEOs you've never heard of who run large tech companies will be speaking, and there will be full halls of their eager target audiences.

Don't you think it might be self-centered to assume someone's not the public face of the company because you don't know who they are?